memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Unnamed individuals
"Viidians" * Moved from Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion "Vidiians" is a duplicatte of the singular version of the article. Delete or redirect. Logan 5 21:02, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) : Redirect. — THOR ''=/\='' 21:29, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) :: Delete, plural forms of a species' name is designated for lists. The old designation would have "List of Vidiians" or "List of Vulcans", but we have since dropped the "List of" and just go by "Vidiians" or "Vulcans". To expand on that example, "Vulcans" is a list of all named individuals of the "Vulcan" species. In order to create a list of species, I believe it has been agreed upon that there should be at least a dozen, individuals of said species. Since there has only been 2 or 3 Viidians, I still say delete. --Alan del Beccio 23:25, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::: I'd like to bring up a point -- i don't think there are enough "unnamed vidiians" to fill a separate list article -- but perhaps enough that they could be listed in the Unnamed Vidiians page. I'll try to do it up now in case we decide to keep it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:06, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::: There seem to be 7 unnamed Vidiians: Vidiian #1+2, Vidiian surgeon and commander from , Vidiian Guard #1+2 from and Vidiian Captain from . Then, there's also Chakotay as a Vidiian from and the Vidiians in . If you need screenshots, I've got them all here on my computer. --Jörg 00:46, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :: Works with what I proposed below. --Alan del Beccio 00:51, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Probably not the place to bring this up, but I was thinking maybe we could or should do that with all species that don't have enough to fill an "unnamed X species" article. Instead of placing "unnamed X specie #1" in a subsection of the "X specie" (non-list singular) article about a species, as most unnamed individuals are currently placed, place them in the "X species" (plural) about its' people '''page. That way we can keep everything organized with one of three and a half options: 1) Species page (Vulcan), 2) Individuals of that species (Vulcans) 3) Unnamed individuals of that species (Unnamed Vulcans), 3½) Special circumstance: consolidated all species that don't fit into the first 3 groups individually into #2, and then subsectioned into 'named' and 'unnamed' (like the old "List of Vulcans, etc., used to be organized before we created '''Unnamed Vulcans). For consistancy, this would include all unnamed individuals of the species as well. The only time we would need the "Unnamed X species" article is in the case, like we have now, where we have an extremely large list of names, such as the preexisting list of Humans, Romulans, Klingons, etc. --Alan del Beccio 00:39, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I completely agree. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::::Me too, archived --Memory 14:57, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) Lists Are the redundant lists of Romulans/Klingons left over from previous expansion or something we're doing for all the lists? It seems like a strange idea to me in that case. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 18:06, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) Unnamed Character Pages and Their Lengths (archived, ) Greetings, as some of you have probably noticed, I have been working on Unnamed character pages (Most recently for the USS Saratoga). These pages are also becoming increasingly popular because they seem to be very easy to add to. Now, pages like Unnamed Humans and, especially, Unnamed Vulcans (which is already huge) will eventually grow to a highly expansive size (Especially Humans). Instead of keeping all of the unnamed characters on one page (And cause some massive loading), I recommend we assign various pages like 'Unnamed Humans, Page 1', that way we can sort characters and keep loading times short. Of course, this isn't really a case at present (Vulcans seem to be the biggest page thus far, along with some of the Starships, but they can, and most likely will, get very large), but it will in the future. Discuss please. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:47, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC) :IN continuance of dividing the pages up by century, I suggest dividing the characters up by groups they were encountered in -- were they inhabitants of a certain city, military unit, spacecraft, station, paramilitary organization, learning institution? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::According to our guidelines, any information should be placed where it can best be found. We already had that discussion about subdividing lists several times before, and I still disagree with the common practice to create deep tree structures... If I'd want to find an "unnamed human", I would look for it on Unnamed Humans - if I want to find an unnamed crewmember of starship XYZ (or any other person encountered in a specific situation), I would look on Unnamed XYZ personnel (which might even be a redirect to the starship article if there are only a few unnamed crewmembers). I really don't think that anything more complicated than that is necessary or helpful. If a list of "unnamed WHOEVER" gets too big (however that is defined), we should either find a sensible subdivision if such exists, or simplz keep it as a big list, which is a better solution than the "Page 1-X" approach in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::One thing I've found is that if you break the unnamed characters down to the individual scenes they appeared in, it becomes obvious extras were only hired in small groups -- the largest such groupings in ST history would be the 500 extras playing the Enterprise crew in Star Trek I, even that will probably only end up occupying a subpage of Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. :::You'll probably find residents of the larger articles seem to fit more naturally towards other articles -- for example Unnamed Romulans is half commanders -- perhaps "Unnamed Romulan commanders" is the next choice of subpage. Some Unnamed Klingons could probably be IKS Rotarran personnel, etc, -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:25, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) Redirect suggestion As unnamed species pages frequently have the header "The following is a list of unnamed ____", using the "unnamed people" link anyway, why not have the word "unnamed" as a redirect? Any problems with this? --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, May 19, 2016 (UTC) :To be frank, I'm not even sure why they direct here like that anyhow... -- sulfur (talk) 17:45, May 19, 2016 (UTC) Why isn't it more comprehensive? The lists seem to only include the most popular races. --LauraCC (talk) 17:49, May 19, 2016 (UTC) Structure of this page When people see the list of pages at the top of this page, they may skim over it and not notice the individuals of unknown species listed here. I'm wondering how this page could be fixed? --LauraCC (talk) 18:35, September 13, 2016 (UTC) How to (partially) de-clutter some unnamed pages In cases where multiple members of a family are unnamed, such as here regarding Hoshi Sato and Trip Tucker's families, would they more naturally fit on a "so-and-so's family" page? --LauraCC (talk) 19:09, February 6, 2017 (UTC) : A better initial start would be to split the page by century. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:26, August 28, 2017 (UTC) I posted my question on this talk page because it involves multiple "Unnamed" pages, not this one specifically. But you're right, perhaps this one should be split, too, now. --LauraCC (talk) 19:28, August 28, 2017 (UTC) I've added the split tag now, but I think it's a pretty obvious yes. The only problem is figuring out all the redirects that will then need to changed. --LauraCC (talk) 18:56, August 31, 2017 (UTC)